But to answer your question here...Small World wasn't designed as a game where you make specific deals like that. If you're wanting a game like that, try Shadows Over Camelot (also by Days of Wonder) because you're all trying to beat the game together and can make deals all you want. Settlers of Catan is also good for deals!

In Small World, there are no rules about making deals so if you want to play it with deals like that, and you think it's more fun that way, I would say go for it. But I don't think that was the intention of the game, so your friend is kind of right. Personally I would not want to play with 'deals' the way you're talking about them.

I pretty much agree with what rasmussen81 said, but from the sound of how you do "deals" I think his examples are a bit off. Mind you, his examples are still terrific games I think you should try, but in Shadows over Camelot you're working towards a common goal (unlike Small World), and in Settlers of Catan deals are a necessity and don't have a whole lot of backhanded scheming (although I haven't played it much, so I could be wrong if this happens in higher-up play).

I did play both Catan and Munchkin in the same session last night. But I posted this in the general forum because I am not asking about a specific game.

I am speaking of the general principal of aligning with competitors for short term mutual benefit in any game.

If it's totally within my purview to do option A or option B on my turn. And totally within your purview to do option A or B on your turn. And we agree that if you do A on your turn then I will do B on my turn - is that cheating?

I like playing a game called "Who's the threat?!" I play this inside of almost every other game I play. I pick a player who I see as a threat and try to convince everyone that the chosen player is a threat. If anyone seems to agree about the threat, I try to rally us into a team with a common enemy.

the fun is to do this while letting my "teammate" think they saw the threat on their own and needed me.

last night someone said this is cheating if its not written into the rules. But I say - I play games with people to play games with people. I want to have a different experience than if I was playing with computer controlled AI opponents.

It seems like the opposition view to this is very much a single player version of gaming. Where you try to interact only with the game and not with the other players (other than their moves within the game). You could put the game on a rolling table and put the players in separate rooms (or play over the internet) for those kinds of measured interactions.

I was hoping that I was a member of a large camp of gamers who saw games as tools for psychological and thematic competitions. It seems I am alone.

If everyone thinks this is cheating, I may have to re-evaluate my position.

If it's totally within my purview to do option A or option B on my turn. And totally within your purview to do option A or B on your turn. And we agree that if you do A on your turn then I will do B on my turn - is that cheating?

I like playing a game called "Who's the threat?!" I play this inside of almost every other game I play. I pick a player who I see as a threat and try to convince everyone that the chosen player is a threat. If anyone seems to agree about the threat, I try to rally us into a team with a common enemy.

the fun is to do this while letting my "teammate" think they saw the threat on their own and needed me.

Ah, now I understand your question a bit better. I have to admit that I do the same kind of thing when I play Small World and Small World Underground. It makes sense to point out who I think is the point leader...or the person who looks like they might be the biggest threat.

Personally, I wouldn't say it's cheating unless there is something written in the rules about "Table Talk".

Quote:

last night someone said this is cheating if its not written into the rules. But I say - I play games with people to play games with people. I want to have a different experience than if I was playing with computer controlled AI opponents.

It seems like the opposition view to this is very much a single player version of gaming. Where you try to interact only with the game and not with the other players (other than their moves within the game). You could put the game on a rolling table and put the players in separate rooms (or play over the internet) for those kinds of measured interactions.

I was hoping that I was a member of a large camp of gamers who saw games as tools for psychological and thematic competitions. It seems I am alone.

If everyone thinks this is cheating, I may have to re-evaluate my position.

I don't have any idea how you play games, but I did have one thought while reading this post...

If your goal is to turn people against each other, and if you are pursuing that goal in every game you're playing...I can see how the 'chosen player', as you put it, would not think it's a fair way to play. Personally I don't think I would call it cheating, but I might complain that it's unsportsmanlike to convince everyone to gang up on me! I play games to have fun, not to engage in psychological warfare.

Like you said, games with other people are full of psychology...and part of that psychology is whether people are having fun. Nobody likes to feel 'ganged up on' all the time. So to answer your question, I don't think it's cheating, but I might advise that your group maybe talk about how much (and what kind of) interaction they like during a game!

If everyone at the table is happy to ignore some aspects of the rules to perform "deals" like you suggested in your first post then great! Go ahead, you just made a house rule.

I myself would allow "deals" like "I wont attack you this turn if you don't attack me next turn", but if it involved an exchange of something that isn't explicitly allowed to be exchanged (like Victory Points in Small World) then it would be cheating as you cannot simply 'give' those away. If you wish to act in some contorted manor as so to allow VP to be taken from you then fine, but you can't simply trade a non-tradable resource and still be playing by the rules.

In general though I do like a bit of player interaction at the table, like pointing out other equally (or better) suited targets which often belong to another player rather than your own - or highlighting how one player is clearly in the lead and needs to be ganged up on to keep everyone else from being trampled. This is a frequent activity in (competitive) gaming at my table, although in its counter its often raised as a defence if someone keeps getting targeted (unfairly) by one or many players - which either convinces people to leave them alone for a bit, or encourages other players to introduce karmatic play against the aggressors. Of cause this in itself can be used tactically when you're in a winning position, so there is often a lot of debate which surrounds it.

So, I'd encourage "dealing", although highlight how there is no binding contract (but lying will quickly get others to not trust you, and perhaps even gang up on you for being untrustworthy, unless you have a good excuse). I agree that playing with people is playing with people and should take that into account, both in terms of interaction and how "mean" you can be.

The original example, being paid a VP for not attacking, sounds illegal, i.e. one player paying another one VP is not an action that a player is allowed to take (if I recall my Small World rules correctly). So, if your opponent took that action, it was an illegal action and thus the statement it is cheating sounds accurate.

Nothing to stop deals, however, as long as you are not making up new game mechanics. You could say "I won't attack you here if you attack there"; there is no new game mechanic in play. It is just talk about intentions. Yes, talking about ganging up on the leader is very much a part of competitive games, but making up game mechanics is not.

How would you feel about one person always giving enough VPs to another player so that they always beat you out of 1st place? Would you be cool with a deal like that? Of course not, it would take all of the fun out of the game.

I think Dhurtt has it right. I think that there is a distinction between adding or changing a mechanic (which might alienate or disadvantage a player) and making on-the-table agreements as part of a legitimate strategy.

There is a difference, for example, in Monopoly between saying, "bank always gets double", which is a new mechanic and in my opinion unfair, and saying, "Let's all try and bleed so and so dry!"

What doe others think? Is ganging up on a player (when its not part of the mechanic) a form of cheating?

What doe others think? Is ganging up on a player (when its not part of the mechanic) a form of cheating?

When you got an option to gang up or to let said player win the game.
Think that youre not breaking any rule or inventing new mechanic.
True, It goes into some moral/ethic thin ice, but IMO, its not a cheating.

As long as items (VPs or tokens, etc.) are not given out! unless specifically allowed in the rules, it is NOT CHEATING. If you change the rules or spirit of the rules, I would say it is.

The social game is what makes a game for me. I would much rather sit around a boardgame with people and play a game then play on a screen because of the fun comments, interactions, strategy exchanges and cross talk. Giving strategic advice is part of that, as long as it keeps the game fun for everyone. I will often point out strategies to help players when asked - who is ahead, who to attack, etc and if I am the biggest threat I will tell them so and even suggest/agree with others if this is the case. I want people to enjoy games, learn, have fun and not get angry.

So my suggestion, if everyone agrees talking is okay, go for it. But don't ruin the experience for others if they don't agree, or play with those who are more in agreement with you.